Debates of May 12th, 2022

An Act for the Substantive Equality of Canada's Official Languages

[Mario Beaulieu, Bloc, La Pointe-de-l'Île, QC]

Madam Speaker, I want to come back to francophone immigration and temporary permits for African students, who face an incredibly high rejection rate when we have missed our francophone immigration targets for the last 20 years or so.

Does the member not think that it would be a good idea to amend Bill C-13 to include binding targets and an obligation to produce results?

[Arielle Kayabaga, Liberal, London West, ON]

Madam Speaker, I really appreciate that question from my colleague, who is also a member of the Standing Committee on Official Languages.

As I just said in my speech on Bill C‑13, we want this policy to help the Minister of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship build on efforts to increase francophone immigration to Canada.

Today he announced that we will continue to work on this. Let us not forget that, when the Conservatives were in power, they closed many of our diplomatic missions in Africa. We cannot do more if we have fewer missions and fewer visa offices. Right now, we are trying to make up for the work they did not do so we can continue to grow francophone immigration.

I deeply appreciate your work on francophone immigration, specifically francophone immigration in Africa.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

I have to remind the member that she must address her questions and comments directly to the Chair, not directly to members.

The hon. member for Cowichan—Malahat—Langford.

[Alistair MacGregor, NDP, Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, BC]

Madam Speaker, I am sorry to sound like a broken record, but this is on the same subject. This section of Bill C-13 reminds me of the government's Bill C-5, where it used a declaration of principles rather than doing the heavy lifting of amending the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act.

This talks about setting objectives, targets and indicators. There is no catch-up target and no clearly stated objective. Francophone communities outside of Quebec have been let down for a couple of decades.

Would my hon. colleague not agree with me that having some specificity in this bill would give those communities some certainty and hold the minister to account, rather than giving a wide swath of interpretation as the bill is currently written?

[Arielle Kayabaga, Liberal, London West, ON]

Madam Speaker, I think the bill is pretty specific.

We are talking about francophone immigration outside Quebec and asking the Minister of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship to work with everybody to make sure that francophone immigration continues to increase in Canada and Quebec.

I do not think it is true that we have no targets and no specific measures. I just mentioned some of them. I would encourage my colleague opposite to read the bill.

[Jeremy Patzer, Conservative, Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK]

Madam Speaker, even though we are discussing a government bill to amend the Official Languages Act, I do not think my colleagues, or the interpreters for that matter, would like to hear me using this time to practice my French, so forgive me if I spend the entire 10 minutes here with members today speaking in English. I will save that for another day.

When discussing our two official languages in Canada, it is important to first acknowledge the role each of them has had to play in our history, and they continue to actively shape our national culture. This is not only true for Quebec in the past, the present or, quite frankly, the future, as we go forward from here tonight.

There is a lot of French heritage across the entire country. To this day, we will find francophone communities in the Atlantic provinces, in Ontario, in Manitoba and even across western Canada. In fact, right in my riding of Cypress Hills—Grasslands, we have several distinctly francophone communities, and I am going to spend a few minutes tonight talking about those communities, if members will indulge me.

I will start with the great community of Gravelbourg in my riding. It has a great Catholic heritage with the Church of St. Philomena, which became the Cathedral of St. Philomena on July 27, 1930. It was later renamed Our Lady of the Assumption Cathedral in 1965. The construction began in 1918, and the Most Reverend O.E. Mathieu, Archbishop of Regina, presided at the blessing ceremony on November 5, 1919. The architect, however, and this is important to know for the context of the speech here tonight, was the one and only J.E. Fortin of Montreal.

On December 14, 1918, le Collège catholique de Gravelbourg opened its doors to its first students. This college is the oldest institution that still operates in Gravelbourg. In 1976, the Oblates of Mary Immaculate handed over the direction of the college to the francophonie of Saskatchewan.

This college has been a very important piece in my life. I played many volleyball matches at Collège Mathieu when I was growing up in the great community of Frontier. We travelled there multiple times to play. It is a great, beautiful school right in the middle of the Prairies, and pays a great homage to the French heritage that belongs to the community of Gravelbourg. The people are very proud of that community, and as a representative for the area, I, for one, am very proud of the great heritage that is represented there.

I also want to point out the great community of Lafleche, Saskatchewan. Lafleche is named after Louis-François Richer Laflèche, a Roman Catholic missionary to Rupert’s Land from 1844 to 1856, who also happened to be the bishop of Trois-Rivières, Quebec, from 1867 to 1898.

Members may be starting to sense a theme here of the great French heritage imported through the Catholic church from Quebec into Saskatchewan. However, there is one more community I want to talk about here tonight. There are more than three great communities, but I am going to focus on these three here tonight, because we have a limited amount of time in this debate.

The third one is the great community of Ponteix, Saskatchewan, and I just want to go over the history of it. The Paroisse Notre Dame D'Auvergne Parish was born of Father Albert-Marie Royer's dream of founding a parish that he would dedicate to the Virgin Mary. In 1907, after having studied the nature of the soil on several occasions, Father Royer made his choice on the land that runs along the Notukeu Creek in Saskatchewan, which seemed promising to him. It was a land without wood, but very fertile and easy to cultivate.

I would be remiss if I did not mention that this land also happens to fall within the Palliser Triangle, which was deemed not to be suitable for mankind to live within, yet here we are today. We have many great communities that live in within the Palliser Triangle. They happen to be feeding the world, not just Canada, and doing a great job of it.

It is also important to keep in mind something that I am sure most parties will agree with in this place. The French language, with its history and future in Canada, is much bigger than the Liberal Party, or any other political party for that matter, including the Bloc Québécois. There have already been, and there still are, Conservatives and members of many other parties who have participated in its history and supported its growth.

Besides transcending political parties and partisan interests, French Canada is also something that is much bigger than what governments try to do. That is why we have to make sure that the issue of official languages is handled in a careful way that gets the right balance, which is also why a member from Saskatchewan would be willing to speak to this important bill here tonight.

I will turn now to a general concern, which has already been raised by other members, including the great member for Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier in Quebec, who also serves as our Conservative shadow minister of official languages. It has to do with the minister and the department of heritage. There are some technical questions with how they should be involved with the implementation of these proposed changes. Along with those points, I want to bring up some broader context. There has been some confusion expressed and feedback, not only from the opposition, but also from other parts of society as well. The Fédération des communautés francophones et acadienne du Canada was quoted on Radio Canada saying that they also have to wonder about the fact that the Department of Canadian Heritage retains a coordinating role in the implementation of the law when it has no authority over other federal institutions.

Ultimately, this minority Parliament needs to hold the federal government accountable. We need to make sure that any power we give to them is used responsibly for the good of Canadian francophones and that it will not somehow be used by the Liberals to promote their own partisan interests and political gain.

As always, I also want to make sure that we never miss the rural perspective on this issue. Our policy for official languages does not just impact a single region in the country, and I hope the experience of francophones who live outside of Quebec's biggest cities is considered.

Here is something that I came across in the summary of Bill C-13, which reads:

(l) enable the Commissioner of Official Languages to enter into compliance agreements and, in certain cases, to make orders; and

(m) enable the Commissioner of Official Languages to impose administrative monetary penalties on certain entities for non-compliance with certain provisions of Part IV of that Act.

It also makes a related amendment to the Department of Canadian Heritage Act.

Part 2 enacts the Use of French in Federally Regulated Private Businesses Act, which, among other things, provides for rights and duties respecting the use of French as a language of service and a language of work in relation to federally regulated private businesses in Quebec and then, at a later date, in regions with a strong francophone presence. That Act also allows employees of federally regulated private businesses to make a complaint to the Commissioner of Official Languages with respect to rights and duties in relation to language of work and allows the Commissioner to refer the complaint to the Canada Industrial Relations Board in certain circumstances. It also provides that the Minister of Canadian Heritage is responsible for promoting those rights. Finally, Part 2 makes related amendments to the Canada Labour Code.

I find it interesting that this bill would allow for fines to be levied against a private business or a Crown corporation for not adhering to the act, up to a maximum of $25,000. I know that this is all in response to the pressure that the government is facing for Air Canada hiring an anglophone executive, and that would be a $25,000 fine for a corporation that is responsible for bringing in millions and millions of dollars of profit, but I wonder about the far-reaching consequences of having a knee-jerk reaction to this decision.

For example, I wonder if we were to go back through history, does that mean that, when it was still a federal program, it would have excluded or fined a PFRA pasture rider for simply not being bilingual. I also wonder about other federally regulated businesses in my riding.

What about, for example, Farm Credit Canada, which provides crucial financial services to farmers and ranchers? Over the last two years, we have heard many, many people talk about the impacts Farm Credit Canada has had on their farms. What is this act going to mean for people who do business in a very important industry such as agriculture? What is this legislation going to mean for a business like Farm Credit Canada? What about grain elevators and inland terminals, which happen to be federally regulated, that are responsible for the contracting and shipping of commodities to the coasts for processing or export to the world markets?

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

We are out of time.

Questions and comments, the hon. parliamentary secretary.

[Rachel Bendayan, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Tourism and Associate Minister of Finance]

Madam Speaker, I can only agree with my colleague, who stated that all members of the House are entitled to be proud of our French language. I hope that he will try to say a few words in French the next time he gives a speech.

I would like to know what the Conservatives are actually proposing as an amendment. It is almost 11 p.m. on a Thursday evening. I was in the House when the Conservatives proposed referring the bill to a committee, but so far I have not heard any concrete proposals for improving this bill.

Can the member talk about his party's concrete suggestions so we can learn how to improve this bill, if he wishes?

[Jeremy Patzer, Conservative, Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK]

Madam Speaker, in my riding of Cypress Hills—Grasslands, we have three very distinct francophone communities. In my speech, I was talking about the fact that there is the possibility that businesses beyond Air Canada or Canadian National might be fined based on the wording within this bill. That is something I find concerning because there are many federally regulated industries in my riding.

My hope is that we can send this bill to committee, where hopefully, because the bill is very broad, we can find a very refined approach to make sure that shoreline railways, for example, will not be unfairly punished by this bill because they are federally regulated. We are clearly trying to target specific companies, such as Air Canada and CN, for having anglophone executives or boards, as we have heard in the House previously before this debate tonight.

[Gabriel Ste-Marie, Bloc, Joliette, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech.

He spoke about his riding and a town called Gravelbourg. My butcher told me that members of his family established that town a long time ago. He remains in contact with his family who lives there. It is a small world.

French is declining, especially in Quebec. To better protect French, Quebec is asking that Bill 101 apply to federally regulated businesses in Quebec. Does my colleague agree with that?

[Jeremy Patzer, Conservative, Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK]

Madam Speaker, being a member from Saskatchewan, I do not think it would be appropriate for me to comment on things that are happening in the province of Quebec. I do not think we want people from Saskatchewan telling Quebec what it should be doing within its own jurisdiction, so I will leave making comments about Quebec to the members from Quebec because I think that is more appropriate.

In the community of Gravelbourg, we have many great francophone businesses. For example, there is a bookstore there that is distinctly francophone. If people want to purchase a great piece of French literature, they can go there and purchase it. I have gone through that business myself. It is a great business. It has a lot of great literature that promotes the French language in Saskatchewan.

In Saskatchewan, there are many communities and businesses where the French language is not just surviving but thriving. They are doing a great job of promoting the culture that has enabled communities to be tied to Quebec. They are not just purely of Catholic heritage; they are part of the grand scheme of things. Gravelbourg, Lafleche, Ponteix and many of the other communities in my riding are doing a great job of preserving the French language and French heritage—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

I am sorry, but I have to allow for one more brief question.

The hon. member for Skeena—Bulkley Valley.

[Taylor Bachrach, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Madam Speaker, I was listening to the debate and thinking about the difference the bill could make for the small but mighty francophone community in northwest British Columbia. I appreciated the stories the member shared about the francophone communities in the riding he represents. I wonder if he could share with the House which provision in the bill he feels would make the biggest positive difference for those communities he represents.

[Jeremy Patzer, Conservative, Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK]

Madam Speaker, I want to thank the member for the great service he provides to his communities. I am sure in his riding there are many small pockets of francophone communities, as there in the communities in my riding and all across this great country.

The bill would provide the opportunities for people to be able to learn French. There are many great communities that have French immersion programs. I did mention in my speech Collège Mathieu in Gravelbourg, which provides a French education for people who are trying to learn French. People from all across this great country take their high school education in Gravelbourg, for example, because they care so much about the language. We have lots of great things happening in Saskatchewan.

[Marilène Gill, Bloc, Manicouagan, QC]

Madam Speaker, I would like to say from the outset that French in Quebec and outside Quebec is alive and well.

In the House, I sometimes get the impression from some speeches that French is being dismissed as a dying language. People have brought up certain monuments from the past. I agree that we can be proud, but French is not a thing of the past and the Bloc Québécois can attest that it has a future. However, I think Bill C‑13 is a step backward.

I will explain what I mean, as some of my colleagues have, but perhaps on a bit more of a personal level. We all have a very close and personal connection to our mother tongue, and even to what I did outside the House. In my professional life, this was always very important.

I mentioned a step backward.

First there was Bill C-32, and today we are debating Bill C‑13. We can all agree that sometimes bills are two sides of the same coin. They do look somewhat similar. There is talk of urgency and improvements, but urgency is relative given that the Liberals decided in 2021 to shut down Parliament and call an election just after the Minister of Official Languages had introduced Bill C‑32. Some changes were made. I remember hearing a colleague say earlier that the previous bill was really quite extraordinary, so much so that they decided to rewrite it in the next Parliament.

We keep hearing about equality. To me, “equality” is a pretty strong term. It is not “equity” or “the possibility of equity”. I do not think Bill C‑13 is about equality. Even in terms of institutional bilingualism or individual bilingualism, I think it is a denial of the truth to say that bilingualism truly exists in Canada.

I could talk about my personal experience as a private citizen, and not just with the Air Canada example. Even though Bill C‑13 supposedly sets out to achieve “substantive equality”, this is still just a bill. As with any rights issue, there can still be a right, and the idea with that right can be equality, but in actual fact and in practice in real life, there has to be a lot more than that. A colleague talked about “teeth”, but I think that overstates what is in the bill. I talked about a step backward, so “teeth” is not really what we have here.

One thing the Bloc Québécois feels is important is the acknowledgement of a fact. I am not sure this particular fact is worth getting excited about, but the bill does acknowledge the fact that French is in a minority situation in Canada and in North America. We agree on that. These are just numbers, but at least there is that acknowledgement, and that is one step in the right direction, albeit a small one.

The Bloc Québécois often comes back to the issue of minority status. Quebec's French is the language of the minority in Canada and we stand by that. It is not the language of the majority. It is in Quebec, but it is still surrounded by English. I will come back to that later with personal examples. I believe it is important to talk about the minority status of French.

The Bloc Québécois naturally stands with francophones outside Quebec. Bill C‑13 does not have the same impact on communities outside Quebec as it does on those in Quebec. That could sometimes be a good thing for certain communities. I was thinking about what the Minister of Official Languages was saying earlier concerning the court challenges program. For francophone groups outside Quebec, it may be useful. However, in Quebec, it is the complete opposite. It is destructive.

With regard to Bill C‑13, the best approach would have been to respect Quebec and its choices. Only a nation can properly defend its own language. Language is the main vehicle for culture. It is a means of expression that is replete with history and meaning.

It is up to Quebec to protect it. Quebec knows best how to do that, such as with the Charter of the French Language. Here the feds are imposing a bill that conflicts with our existing mechanisms to protect and promote the language. They are forcing us to do all kinds of things. I have emphasized that repeatedly this week. The feds force a lot of things on us.

Earlier, I talked about denial. I could talk about something that rings totally false. The government's proposal will be harmful. We really want something asymmetrical, but that is not at all what this is.

I wish I could have talked about a lot of other things. I really could have used 20 minutes, but I will move on to something more personal. Anyway I think we all agree, and we have said it over and over: there is no way we can accept this.

I would have liked to talk about the differences between a right and a responsibility. In the case of Quebec, this bill enables federally regulated businesses to choose the language, whereas the charter says that employees must speak French at work. That is a big difference. It is night and day. Protection needs to take precedence over choice. If the choice exists, we will not be able to defend our language. Sometimes, people choose the easy way out, and the easy way out is Bill C-13.

That being said, I would like to talk about my own personal experience. My colleague from La Pointe-de-l'Île specializes in languages, my colleague from Berthier—Maskinongé is a historian and my colleague from Longueuil—Saint-Hubert is an actor. My background is in the humanities. I enjoy literature. I am a literature professor. I worked in writing and publishing. My house is full of books. Of course, they are books of French literature, even though I also worked on British literature. The fact remains that, even though this was not a family trend, I somehow stumbled into the humanities and the language field. Every day, my thoughts turn to issues related to language, literature, culture and identity. Language is part of our identity.

I also have children. When one has children, they have a mother tongue. Of course I taught them French, but our children are not our children. That is the way it is; it is part of our existence. I have three children, one of whom is very small. He does not talk yet. I also have older children. Despite my efforts, all I see in their lives—this is a debate about territory, so I hope my colleagues will allow me this more or less accurate analogy—is like what the Romans did, but with English, which seeks to extinguish the French language right in our own homes. I am not against all these digital tools, but when I look at my children, I can see that, language-wise, it is no longer like it was in 1950, when people had to cross the border to swim in an anglophone sea. Now it is in our very own homes, so we really have to come up with some very strong measures.

I think of my son who is a gamer. He is bilingual, and I am glad he is. I speak several languages too. I speak a little German and Spanish. I studied Latin and Greek, and I speak French and English. I love languages. I see that he has become bilingual, but at the same time, I see how much languages change. I am talking about the written language, the spoken language and our relationship to language. Even though my kids are young, certain languages still dominate. In the concept itself, the idea of cultural domination means that one will assimilate the other.

The same is true of my daughter, through the use of social media, and I mean that in the pejorative sense. Sometimes she has no choice regarding what information she can access, even though the amount of information is astronomical. We have a huge encyclopaedia at our fingertips. She will end up becoming anglicized, too.

This will also be true for my little boy, with platforms like Netflix and everything he will have access to. Most of it is in English.

Everything I just described is really happening, and legislation like this is truly a complete setback. When we want to strengthen a language, and I am still talking about Quebec, we do not introduce legislation that goes against the will of a nation and against the will of a government. This would only weaken the language.

In my opinion, and my words will be harsh, this bill is an indirect linguistic assimilation policy for Quebec. When something cannot be done directly, it is done indirectly. I think Bill C‑13 is smoke and mirrors.

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Madam Speaker, it has been interesting to hear the government try to trumpet its work on this. Of course, members remember that it put forward a bill in June of last year, at the very tail end of the last Parliament, but instead of ever bringing that bill forward for debate, the government called an early election in the middle of the summer. That was on the same day that Kabul fell and various other events were going on.

In spite of always complaining about its legislative agenda, the fact is that it has on multiple occasions, through prorogation or calling an early election, torpedoed its own legislative agenda.

I wonder if the member wants to comment a bit on the context of that and how long it has taken the government, and the efforts to manipulate Parliament now in spite of its failures to move things forward in the last Parliament.

[Marilène Gill, Bloc, Manicouagan, QC]

Madam Speaker, I could not agree more with my colleague. In all the notes I prepare for my speeches, I am always tempted to remind members of that early and absolutely useless election that cost all Quebeckers and Canadians time.

We are now starting over again, discussing bills that we could have tackled back then. Furthermore, the government is constantly telling us that it is urgent. I would submit to my colleagues that we are sitting until midnight tonight. There could have been other ways of doing this.

I would like the government to take responsibility for its own bills and its own legislative agenda so we can get things done. There is no point in simply talking without there being any concrete action. We see it even with tonight's bill: There is a great deal of goodwill, but, when it comes to concrete measures, that is a different story.

[Alexandre Boulerice, NDP, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC]

Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to have heard my colleague's speech. The NDP agrees that the French language is in decline in Quebec and Canada. In fact, the government adopted a motion to that effect during the last Parliament, which I remember quite well because I was the one to move the motion.

This bill, which needs much improvement, still achieves something fundamental because, for the first time, it affirms that there is an asymmetry between the status of French and that of English, since French is a minority in Quebec, but also in Canada and across North America. Does the member not think that this recognition of the fact that French is in a minority constitutes progress for the protection of the French language?

[Marilène Gill, Bloc, Manicouagan, QC]

Madam Speaker, I could also say that I have good intentions while introducing a bill, for example, to lower gas prices.

There is nothing in Bill C‑13. The government sees, accepts, says and commits to saying that there is asymmetry. However, the text does not reflect that, since it does not contain asymmetrical measures. It is a problem and that is the problem.

For its part, the anglophone community in Quebec is doing very well. Hundreds of millions of dollars are sent to Quebec. Let us look at this honestly, and look at the data, not just the good intentions. The bill contains words, but words are worthless without action.

[Jeremy Patzer, Conservative, Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK]

Madam Speaker, this bill is most likely going to end up in committee, so I would like the member to elaborate on what she would like to see happen to the bill in committee. What impact is it going to have on the French language for Quebec?

[Marilène Gill, Bloc, Manicouagan, QC]

Madam Speaker, we simply want this bill not to apply to Quebec. That would be the best thing to do.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Madam Speaker, I want to start by acknowledging that I am on the traditional territory of the WSANEC nation in my riding of Saanich—Gulf Islands.

Since we are talking about languages this evening, I want to point out that the word “saanich” comes from an indigenous language called Sencoten. The word was mispronounced by the Europeans, which resulted in the change that explains the name of my riding today.

We are here this evening to debate Bill C‑13. It has been a long, hard-fought journey to get protections for both official languages here in Canada. As we have heard, the French language is obviously threatened because it is the minority language in Canada and in North America. Quebec culture represents the largest francophone community in our country, but it is not the only one. There are the Acadians in the Atlantic provinces and there are other francophone communities all across Canada, such as the Franco-Manitoban and Franco-Albertan communities. There is also a francophone community in British Columbia. It is not big, but it is important.

The Official Languages Act was adopted in 1969. That was a long time ago. It declared that French and English were the two official languages of Parliament and the Government of Canada. The next step came in 1982, with the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which reaffirmed French and English as the official languages of Canada. It has been 30 years since the last major reform to this legislation.

The government introduced Bill C‑32 during the previous Parliament, in 2021, but it died on the Order Paper when the election was called last August. We now have Bill C‑13, which was introduced in March 2022. This is my first opportunity to speak to this bill. We clearly need to address the decline of French in this country because French is still threatened, in spite of all of the work that has been done on official languages in Canada.

This bill has been well received. The Commissioner of Official Langauges said, “I have read the proposed measures and believe that they will breathe new life into efforts to protect and promote both of our official languages”. That notion of protecting and promoting French and of promoting and supporting the learning of English and French is a difference between Bill C‑32 from the previous Parliament and the current Bill C‑13. It is nevertheless clear that it is primarily the French language that needs to be protected. The bill also talks about promoting the French language, supporting francophone communities and, for the first time, protecting the right to work and receive services in French.

Bill C-13 is really two bills in one. It amends the Official Languages Act and enacts the use of French in federally regulated private businesses act, while making related amendments to other acts. This is an important effort for the protection and use of French in private companies.

As we have seen in tonight's debate, the Bloc Québécois will not be supporting this effort concerning Quebec. It is right to ask that French be protected in private businesses in Quebec. It is clear that the French language must be used in francophone majority regions. The bill does raise some issues, but I think we will be able to improve it in committee.

Bill C-13 expands and strengthens the powers of the Commissioner of Official Languages. It is a good idea to give him more powers and to strengthen his role by giving him the right to present and find solutions to violations related to the use of the French language in Canada.

This legislation also includes an effort to recognize indigenous languages. It is not much. It does not introduce new powers or new rights. However, the preamble of the amended act now includes these words in the way of recognition: “of maintaining and enhancing the use of languages other than English and French and reclaiming, revitalizing and strengthening Indigenous languages”.

I think that is a step in the right direction. We need to look to other legislation and other reconciliation programs to protect the most at-risk languages, our country's indigenous languages.

For unilingual anglophones who are following this debate, I cannot say how important it is for all of us who do not have French as a first language to keep trying to learn. I know that a lot of the members here tonight have tried, as I have, too. I love speaking French and I love improving my French. Late at night it gets a little more difficult, but it certainly improves and enriches our society.

It is not for nothing that French is known as the language of Molière. It is a beautiful language, and we need to make sure that Canada's identity on this continent, which is really one of the things that distinguishes us in an important way from, I do not know if we can call it American culture, but what passes for culture, not to be too self-satisfied about the richness of Canadian society in entertainment and music. We are, as anglophone Canadians, enormously enriched by the existence of the Quebec fact of the francophone reality that we are not a unilingual country. The more we protect and raise up indigenous languages and hang on to them, that will also improve who we are as a people and enrich us all.

[Ginette Petitpas Taylor, Liberal, Minister of Official Languages and Minister responsible for the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency]

Madam Speaker, over the past few months, I have had the privilege of meeting with a number of stakeholders who have shared the improvements they want to see in this bill compared to the old Bill C‑32. I believe we have incorporated those improvements in Bill C‑13.

I really appreciated the comments by the member for Saanich—Gulf Islands, and I would like to know what recommendations she would make and what amendments she would like to see to Bill C‑13.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Madam Speaker, I thank the Minister of Official Languages for her question. I know that she is from a francophone region in Acadia.

Some recommendations were made by community groups in Quebec to strengthen complaint mechanisms and the commissioner's powers. I am eager to study these issues in committee in order to improve Bill C-13.

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Madam Speaker, on another note, I encourage the member to take a look at the article I just tweeted from The Globe and Mail about indigenous women and violence, and the energy sector.

Back to the main topic, I wonder if the member could just comment on some of the provisions in the bill around francophone immigration, the failure of the government to meet its target on that, the high refusal rates we have seen in francophone Africa, and the impact that has had on our ability to strengthen our engagement with countries in Africa and actually grow towards the target the government says it has.